Page 30 of 39 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 385

Thread: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

  1. #291
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Are the Americans leaving Iraq because they may appear "arrogant" to the Iraqi people? They don;t appear concerned about the charge of "arrogance" with their trrops stationed in other far less troubled areas of the world.

    Iraq is not ready to stand on its own against external threats. That should be clear. This will be just another war where, because of political posturing, American lives have been sacrificed for nothing.

    Yes, God bless the troops, all of them. But this was a political decision, not a military or strategic decision. Bush made a foolish decision in announcing when troops would leave and Obama made an ever worse decision by following through with this, knowing what will probably follow.

    That handshake of Obama with Gadaffi should become as popular as the one with Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein.


    The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Qaddafi's Death Leaves Me Cold: Why?
    Actually, your using arrogant ina different context than I did, so there is no real way I can respond to it. See how I was using it, and answer that.

    Who knows best about how ready Iraq is? Us or Iraq? Again, I repeat, the Iraqis wanted this more than we did.

    You'll have to define what you mean by a political decision. This was negotiated with the Iraqis, who don't want us there without being subject to their laws. They pushed the moving as much as anyone.

    Neither handshake means much. It means much more that we actually supported Saddam against Iran. Yes others gave him more, but that doesn't excuse that we did in fact support him, giving him the false impression we were an ally.

    You threw more than a few different things in your repsonse. Any one of them would make a fair discussion. But what I see as important here is the US, let alone Obama personally, did not just decide to leave. There was a negotiation, and both parties agreed it was time to leave. That's the bottom line.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Actually, your using arrogant ina different context than I did, so there is no real way I can respond to it. See how I was using it, and answer that.
    Arrogant is not one of those words that have shades of meaning. It's always quite clear what it means.

    Who knows best about how ready Iraq is? Us or Iraq? Again, I repeat, the Iraqis wanted this more than we did.
    The Americans, being a well established democracy with a great deal more experience in world affairs and unlimited access to information within the Middle East, should definitely know better whether Iraq is prepared for democracy, regarding threats from within or without. It wasn't that long ago that the American Left were complaining about the corrupt and inept Iraqi leadership. What's changed?

    You'll have to define what you mean by a political decision. This was negotiated with the Iraqis, who don't want us there without being subject to their laws. They pushed the moving as much as anyone.
    I see that as a pretense, nothing more. Certainly pressure could be brought to bear to explain clearly and forcefully how the system works. If Obama couldn't negotiate something as simple as this then he should not be be leader of the free world.

    Neither handshake means much. It means much more that we actually supported Saddam against Iran.
    Yes, and it was reasonable at the time to support Saddam, though not later. But what had Gadaffi done to the United States between the time Obama shook Gadaffi's hand and the time it was decided to kill him? As was shown in that article, and others, Gadaffi was actually fighting against Al Qaeda and had become a useful ally.
    Yes others gave him more, but that doesn't excuse that we did in fact support him, giving him the false impression we were an ally.
    Are you referring to Barrack Obama here?

    Immediately prior to Desert Storm and until the final invasion of Iraq there was no pretense that Saddam Hussein was an American ally. That had been made clear by Clinton and all American leaders.
    You threw more than a few different things in your repsonse. Any one of them would make a fair discussion. But what I see as important here is the US, let alone Obama personally, did not just decide to leave. There was a negotiation, and both parties agreed it was time to leave. That's the bottom line.
    How can a decision be made to leave in a war zone with an arbitrary timeline? That is the height of foolishness and never before been done in any war. That the Left would now support George Bush in this decision, a man for whom they obviously have little respect, appears clearly political as well and is not based on the merits of the case.
    Last edited by Grant; 10-26-11 at 12:43 PM.

  3. #293
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Arrogant is not one of those words that have shades of meaning. It's always quite clear what it means.
    Again you miss the point. I am not at all challenging your misuderstanding of the meaning of the word. I'm saying you took it from what I applied it too, and applied it where I did not.

    The Americans, being a well established democracy with a great deal more experience in world affairs and unlimited access to information within the Middle East, should definitely know better whether Iraq is prepared for democracy, regarding threats from within or without. It wasn't that long ago that the American Left were complaining about the corrupt and inept Iraqi leadership. What's changed?
    Kind of imperialistic, and anohter place where I would use the word arrogant, applied to your view here.

    I see that as a pretense, nothing more. Certainly pressure could be brought to bear to explain clearly and forcefully how the system works. If Obama couldn't negotiate something as simple as this then he should not be be leader of the free world.
    So, not forcing them to keep us is political? Is that really your position? And remember, Bush negoitated this. Obama just accepted it, as well he should have.

    Yes, and it was reasonable at the time to support Saddam, though not later. But what had Gadaffi done to the United States between the time Obama shook Gadaffi's hand and the time it was decided to kill him? As was shown in that article, and others, Gadaffi was actually fighting against Al Qaeda and had become a useful ally.
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend? That's what has gotten us into trouble all around the world. you lose the moral high ground when you support tyrannts, and then profess to be agaisnt tyranny. But, obama didn't start the Lybian revolution. The Lybian people did. Then the french decided to interfer to protect civilains, and we went in after words. It's a slippery slope, and one I think we should have avoided, but lets not pretend we should have protected him either.

    Are you referring to Barrack Obama here?

    Immediately prior to Desert Storm and until the final invasion of Iraq there was no pretense that Saddam Hussein was an American ally. That had been made clear by Clinton and all American leaders.
    No, Obam isn't in the this part of the discussion at all. This was addressng our support of Saddam. You're jumping too far in history. Go back. Put the comment where it is meant to be.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #294
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    There's a good argument for American isolationism because too many American lives and much American treasure have been lost protecting often unworthy allies, and long after they are no longer necessary. But in order to move toward isolationism, national borders should first be protected. One policy appears to contradict the other.
    We don't have to go towards isolationism, just non-interventionism.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #295
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We don't have to go towards isolationism, just non-interventionism.
    As the past decades have demonstrated, just because the United States might initiate a non-interventionist policy with others, does not mean that others will be non-interventionist against the United States and its people. it is no longer possible in this age of technology to be either isolationist or non-interventionist. Those days are gone forever.

  6. #296
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    As the past decades have demonstrated, just because the United States might initiate a non-interventionist policy with others, does not mean that others will be non-interventionist against the United States and its people. it is no longer possible in this age of technology to be either isolationist or non-interventionist. Those days are gone forever.
    That is a very incorrect statement. It is in fact very easy to not be isolationist and instead be non-interventionist.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #297
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We don't have to go towards isolationism, just non-interventionism.
    non-interventionalism is what let Hitler invade Poland and the USSR, and kill millions of Jews.

  8. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again you miss the point. I am not at all challenging your misuderstanding of the meaning of the word. I'm saying you took it from what I applied it too, and applied it where I did not.
    There was no reason to use the word.
    Kind of imperialistic, and anohter place where I would use the word arrogant, applied to your view here.
    "Kind of imperialistic"? Was invading Iraq and dumping Saddam "kind of imperialistic". Now is not the time to be concerned about Americans and their allies being called "arrogant or imperialistic. If schoolyard taunts are going to this Administration's foreign policy then they shouldn't be in the game.
    So, not forcing them to keep us is political? Is that really your position? And remember, Bush negoitated this. Obama just accepted it, as well he should have.
    Of course it's political! What other legitimate reason could there be, given that there is no way that Iraq is in a position to defend itself from outside influences? I would have preferred the US actually get some of that Iraqi oil the Left has always been claiming was the reason for displacing Saddam then leaving empty-handed, trillions in debt, with someone else picking up the spoils.
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend? That's what has gotten us into trouble all around the world.
    No, it has not. You use some of these dictators when they are useful against a greater threat and discard them when they are of no further use. That's the way it works and that's the ways it has to work. What is your alternative?
    you lose the moral high ground when you support tyrannts, and then profess to be agaisnt tyranny.
    There is a great deal of difference between using tyrants and supporting them. This should be clear. And this striving for the "moral high ground", as well as worrying about 'imperialism" or "arrogance" is what has made US foreign policy so inept and patently foolish in recent decades. We can see the slide commence where these silly cliches began.
    But, obama didn't start the Lybian revolution. The Lybian people did.
    The "Libyan people"? How do you know who was behind this revolution? You have no idea who these "Libyan people" are. Do these "Libyan people " have a history of democracy, rule of law, equal rights for all? We do not yet know what the consequences might be, but we do know that there is turmoil in the Middle East and that's it. Withdrawing at ths point in time does not seem a wise decision, and it will be very difficult now for any American leader to get troops back in.

    Then the french decided to interfer to protect civilains, and we went in after words. It's a slippery slope, and one I think we should have avoided, but lets not pretend we should have protected him either.
    Yes, Barrack Obama "led from behind" in Libya (without Congressional approval) and followed the direction of George Bush in Iraq.. Let's see if he tries to get any credit for any of these foreign policy decisions.


    No, Obam isn't in the this part of the discussion at all. This was addressing our support of Saddam. You're jumping too far in history. Go back. Put the comment where it is meant to be.
    It's Obama pulling troops out of Iraq, how this decision effects all of the Middle East, how Obama is a disaster as a US President and how the consequences of his ineptness will create long lasting problems everywhere.

  9. #299
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That is a very incorrect statement. It is in fact very easy to not be isolationist and instead be non-interventionist.
    How can you be 'isolationist' in today's world?

    You can't..

  10. #300
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We don't have to go towards isolationism, just non-interventionism.
    Can you clarify non-interventionism?

Page 30 of 39 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •